Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to both congratulate and wish the students of Amador Valley High School's ``We the People'' team the best of luck for their national competition in the District of Columbia this weekend. I also congratulate their parents and teachers for this remarkable achievement. The U.S. Department of Education's Center for Civic Education sponsors ``We the People'' as an opportunity for students to compete in their knowledge of American civics. Students are quizzed on everything from the U.S. Constitution, the founding of our country, and the revolution of American government. This makes for a great experience for the students, because the testing occurs during simulated congressional hearings. These are creative students who excel in critical thinking and their mastery of history and government. I am proud to say that on February 3, 2006, the ``We the People'' team from Amador Valley High School finished first in the State of California. They are the seventh in the school's history in a line of successful teams to qualify for the national competition in Washington, DC. These students have been victorious at the congressional, regional, and State levels this year. The team consists of 30 seniors who prepared in 15,000 combined hours of study and preparation. During this time, this diverse group of students have come together as one team; supporting each other in the most difficult and rigorous academic experience of their lives. Mr. Speaker, I warmly congratulate the Amador Valley High School team and I want to add the names of these bright students in the Congressional Record: Angela Aronoff, Kiel Barry, Sean Basalyga, Nihat Bayramoglu, Sanam Bhatia, Audra Bloom, David Crisostomo, Jennifer Doxey, Jasmine Guo, Scott Hanford, Jennifer Hank, Glenalyn Hunt, Lauren Johnson, Jack LaFrancesca, Jessica Ma, Amy Qin, Shokoofeh Rajabzadeh, Paula Reever, David Rowse, Lakshmi Santhosh, Eugene Shenkar, Tiffany Shih, Suzanna Sund, Will Tagg, Sonia Talati, Susan Tang, Brookanne Thompson, Ronald Tran, Elise Viebeck, and Jenny Zhan.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution memorializing and honoring the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, William H. Rehnquist. The resolution authorizes and directs the Curator of the United States Supreme Court to create a marble bust of the late Chief Justice and have it placed in the Supreme Court building to honor his memory and legacy to the Court and the United States. Mr. Speaker, Chief Justice Rehnquist was first confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971 as the new Associate Justice replacing Justice John Marshall Harlan. He then served as Associate Justice until 1986 when President Reagan nominated and the Senate confirmed him as the new Chief Justice to replace Chief Justice Warren Burger. Mr. Rehnquist presided as Chief Justice from September 1986 until September 2005 for a total of 19 years, making him the fourth-longest-serving Chief Justice in the history of the Court. Prior to joining the Court, Mr. Rehnquist served in World War II in the United States Army. After the war ended, he attended Stanford University on the G.I. bill where he received bachelor's and master's degrees in political science and then attended Harvard University where he received a master's degree in government. He later returned to Stanford University to attend law school along with future Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In 1951, Mr. Rehnquist went to Washington, D.C., and began what would be his long and successful career with the U.S. Supreme Court when he worked as a law clerk for Justice Robert Jackson during the Court's 1951-1952 term. Mr. Speaker, Chief Justice William Rehnquist served the people of this country and the court he loved for 33 years. I believe that a bust in the Supreme Court is but a small token of our deep appreciation for his dedication to this country and the rule of law.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, today my Colleagues, Barney Frank and Don Young, and I are introducing the American Fisheries Management and Marine-Life Enhancement Act. This legislation will reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act--the Nation's premier fishery conservation statute. This legislation continues to build on the tradition of allowing for regional solutions to regional fishery management problems by using a system of Regional Fishery Management Councils. These Councils offer a transparent process where those with a stake in the resource can be heard and can see how decisions on the management of the resource are made. This legislation keeps in mind a number of important principles which have kept the Magnuson-Stevens Act as relevant and dynamic as it is. We have tried to maintain a number of these key themes including: management must be science-based (with peer review that includes the public); there must be an open and transparent decision-making process with stakeholder involvement; there must be flexibility which recognizes that there is a need for regional solutions to regional problems; there is a need to minimize potential for lawsuits--fisheries management decisions should be made by the professionals not by the courts; there needs to be a balance between conservation and economic considerations; and finally, the Act needs to consider the impacts of management decisions on those communities which are dependent on the resource to remain viable communities. The management of our Nation's fisheries has always been a matter of balance. It is important to continue the balance between the health of the resource and the interests of the fishing industry to provide a healthy, sustainable protein source for the world. Without a sustainable, healthy resource, the fishermen would be out of business and without a fishing industry, the Nation would not have seafood to consume. This legislation maintains this balance and makes sure that the management decisions to maintain the balance are based on science. These decisions need to be made with adequate peer review and with the input of the affected and interested participants and this bill continues those ideals. Ten years ago, Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). That legislation was the first major reauthorization of the Magnuson- Stevens Act and made major changes to the statute. The SFA amended or added 15 definitions, added three new National Standards (and amended one existing National Standard), added 8 new provisions which the Councils were required to comply with in drafting new fishery management plans (and required that all existing plans be amended to comply with the new provisions), included 5 new discretionary provisions for Councils to consider when developing fishery management plans, required thirteen new reports, and for the first time, included disclosure standards, conflict of interest standards, and recusal standards for members of the Regional Fishery Management Councils. The SFA focused on three major themes--the identification overfishing and a requirement for rebuilding overfished fisheries, the identification and conservation of essential fish habitat, and the reduction, to the extent practicable, of bycatch in our Nation's fisheries. All three of themes were important to making sure that fisheries were sustainable. The Sustainable Fisheries Act required major changes to the way the Nation's fisheries were managed--changes for the better. While the SFA was not perfect, it pushed the Councils and the Secretary to address some key issues to make our fisheries more sustainable. Since 1996-- only ten years ago--we have seen tremendous progress in all three of these areas and the Nation's fisheries are in much better shape than they were less than a decade ago. But we can still do better. The American Fisheries Management and Marine-Life Enhancement Act will allow the Councils to gather better data, provide for the use of new technologies, provides new funding for ``clean gear'' technologies and does so without creating new areas for litigation. Congress has continued to discuss ideas which would make our fisheries more sustainable since the SFA was enacted. Members of Congress have participated in two major fisheries conferences here in Washington, D.C. that focused on how well or how poorly fisheries were being managed in the U.S. While the overall picture was getting better, these conferences sparked debate on the new steps that could be taken to make our fisheries better. This legislation builds on the recommendations of those conferences. The American Fisheries Management and Marine-Life Enhancement Act builds on the progress made by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, from the recommendations of the national fisheries conferences, from ideas floated at meetings with interested user groups, and from the report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The Senate Commerce Committee, led by Co-Chairmen Stevens and Inouye, has passed reauthorization legislation that is clearly headed in the right direction and I compliment their leadership on this issue. I hope that the American Fisheries Management and Marine-Life Enhancement Act will be as well received as theirs was and I look forward to resolving the few differences we have before the end of the year. The American Fisheries Management and Marine-Life Enhancement Act takes a number of provisions from Senators Stevens' and Inouye's legislation, a number of provisions from the administration's proposed legislation, a number of recommendations from the Regional Fishery Management Councils, and recommendations from hearings both in Washington and in fishery-dependent communities. This bill addresses or touches on 11 of the 16 recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy which suggest changes to the Magnuson- Stevens Act and 6 of the remaining 11 recommendations that suggest changes to agencies' activities related to fisheries conservation or management. While this legislation may not be perfect, I believe it will move fisheries management in the right direction. I look forward to working with my House Colleagues and my Senate Colleagues to develop consensus legislation to reauthorize this important act before the end of the year.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4882, as amended. H.R. 4882, legislation I introduced along with Resources Committee Ranking Member Congressman Rahall, National Parks Subcommittee Chairman Pearce and Subcommittee Ranking Member Christensen, would locate the congressionally approved underground visitor center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial adjacent to the Lincoln Memorial. I felt compelled to take this unusual action in direct response to what I believe is the unreasonable bureaucracy choreographed by the National Capital Planning Commission, NCPC. After having met with the NCPC chairman, I believed more than ever that I had to take such action when I asked him the simple question: When will the commission complete its unusually long evaluation for the placement of the center? His answer was that the commission was still collecting information and that he could not give me a day, month, week or year. Following years of failed attempts to secure an authorization for the visitor center, I was able to get legislation to the President in November 2003. It is now March 2006 and the National Park Service and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund have promptly met all NCPC requests for environmental and related information on the sitting of the center and yet the commission wants more. Enough is enough. As late as November 2005, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and the National Park Service gave the NCPC an extensive traffic analysis and met other NCPC requests for a December 1 NCPC meeting. The commission was to approve the site for the center at this meeting. Instead, without any notice to the National Park Service and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, the NCPC removed the visitor center from the meeting agenda and requested an extensive and unprecedented environmental analysis. I do not believe there is a need for additional analysis. In compliance with the Commemorative Works Act and the NCPC policies and procedures, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund commissioned an environmental analysis/site selection study in June 2005. The recommended site for the visitor center is cited in H.R. 4882. Site A, as it is known, would not interfere or encroach on the Lincoln or Vietnam Veterans Memorial, and protects the open space and visual sightlines of the Mall as required by the authorizing legislation. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to thank John Reese and Scott Randall of the city of Danville, CA, and Mike Weber of the city of San Ramon, CA, for their service to this country and their leadership and strong support for the visitor center. Finally, if there was any doubt as to the need for this important legislation, one should take a look at the article that appeared in the March 23, 2006, edition of the Washington Examiner. A spokeswoman for the NCPC is quoted as saying the commission is concerned that ``you could end up with a four- or five-story building next to the Lincoln Memorial.'' How is that possible when the visitor center is required by statute to be located underground? I think that quote sums up the agenda of the staff of the NCPC and their unfounded opposition to the visitor center. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4882, as amended.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3179) to reauthorize and amend the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 326) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 205) to authorize the American Battle Monuments Commission to establish in the State of Louisiana a memorial to honor the Buffalo Soldiers, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1481) to amend the Indian Land Consolidation Act to provide for probate reform, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3179) to reauthorize and amend the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3179) to reauthorize and amend the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman will yield, these bills have been worked out. They have been cleared by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and myself. Most of these bills are from your side of the aisle, and they are bills that have been worked on for a number of years. There is nothing in here that has changed. I understand your frustration. It happens every year when we get to the end of the session that stupid stuff happens.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMBO. The bills that we are doing by UC right now are bills that have been before the committee for a long time. The particular bill you are objecting to is a bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) has been working on for years. It is something that means a lot to him. He was sitting right behind you just a minute ago, and I am sure he would be happy to explain it to you. We are not adding anything new into the bill of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 652) to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1310) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow the Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation to increase the diameter of a natural gas pipeline located in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, to allow certain commercial vehicles to continue to use Route 209 within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, and to extend the termination date of the National Park System Advisory Board to January 1, 2007, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1238) to amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to provide for the conduct of projects that protect forests, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. POMBO. No, it does not.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2099) to establish the Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1892) to amend Public Law 107-153 to modify a certain date, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, obviously ANWR is a controversial issue and it is something that this House has debated a number of times. This House has passed it a number of times. It is somewhat ironic that here, at 2 o'clock in the morning, as Mr. Moran points out, that we are hearing that this deserves to be debated again. And I guess we will debate it again because we have debated it probably half a dozen times since I have been here, probably 20 or 30 times since the creation of ANWR. We have talked about what we can do to harness those resources that exist there. The House has spoken a number of times. It has passed a number of times through the House in a strong bipartisan vote. ANWR today represents the largest potential reserves of new energy resources in this country, and if you look at supply and demand right now we do not have enough oil, enough natural gas in the world to meet what the demand is, and that is why the price keeps going up. And the oil companies do like that. They like the price to continue to go up. And we have Members coming down here tonight who have always voted against every new potential energy source. Everything that we have brought to the floor they are opposed to. They are opposed to ANWR. They are opposed to anything that creates new energy in this country. And yet they are still arguing about the high price of energy. It is a direct result of their votes. It is a direct result of the policies that they have pushed through for years. And I think it is kind of funny when I hear people talk about using parliamentary procedural rules to get this into this particular bill. A majority in the House supports opening up ANWR to responsible energy development. A majority in the Senate supports opening it up, and yet they have used procedural rules for 20 years to stop it from happening. And now, in this particular bill, it happens to be included in this. It is not the way I wanted it. I wanted it in the energy bill, but they used procedural rules in the Senate to stop it from becoming part of the energy bill, not once, not twice, but three times. They have used procedural rules to stop it even though a majority supported it in both bodies of Congress and continue to support that today. We need to do something about energy in this country. We need to produce more of our own energy. We continue to be dependent on foreign energy sources and we as a Congress need to stand up and begin to do that. We need to continue to develop new energy sources. There are a number of new technologies that have been developed, a number of new ways that we can conserve and get more out of the energy that we produce. But we have to begin to produce more energy in this country and quit being dependent on Middle Eastern countries and other countries around the world for our energy. That is why we are in this mess right now. You cannot continue to oppose every new source of energy that anybody comes up with and say that you want to do something about it. I support the rule. Vote for the rule and vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, the adoption of this conference report will allow America to develop the vast oil and gas resources of the Arctic Coastal Plain and help ensure our energy security for ourselves and our children. It is without exaggeration that I say that the bipartisan provision allowing ANWR's oil and gas to flow to would not have been included in this conference report without the tireless work of Daniel Val Kish. Dan has a long history with Alaska provisions, having been Chief of Staff for the Resources Committee under Chairman Don Young. He later worked for Senator Frank Murkowski on the Senate nergy and Natural Resources Committee before becoming my key senior advisors on energy policy. Dan was here in 1986 when efforts were first made to embargo this important energy resource. Dan was here when we unlocked ANWR in 1995, only to see it vetoed by President Clinton. These experiences, coupled with Dan's keen intellect, his hard work and his charm and wit, have helped produce this milestone today. Dan is a modest man, but his achievements today are far from modest. I thank Dan for his vision, his perseverance, his dedication and his loyalty. All of America owes a debt of gratitude to this seasoned staffer.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Financial Services be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4636) to enact the technical and conforming amendments necessary to implement the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.